Bloodless Coup

And it gets worse.

it occurs to me that keeping terri alive in this situation is basically glorified taxidermy.

but then how fitting is it that the house would call to testify a glorified stuffed trophy to demonstrate its absurdist reductii about a "culture of life."

Well, I don't know if I am willing to go as far as you are. But to me the whole fight seems beyond absurd and macabre. The woman left no clear instructions to be unplugged or to have feeding stopped. She is caught between two sides of her family (parents, husband) who seems to have more at stake in the fight than anything else. The husband has moved on, essentially remarried in fact if not in law, and my understanding is that there is little of the insurance settlement left for him to get (the ascribed motive to him wanting her to die). If she is not suffering, and her parents are willing to care for her, with the absence of a clear directive from her willing her own death, why doesn't the husband just divorce her, and get on with his life? The back story on this is so ugly. And then, with such a sordid mess, involving Congress is even more of a sideshow.

As always, thinking pragmatically probably doesn't matter much in the face of the law (on which I am not clear, admittedly) regarding living wills and such. But if there's no living will, and the parents are willing to shoulder the burden for Terry Schiavo's care and let the husband get on with his life... why do we need Jeb, the Congress, etc etc to intervene? Oh yes, because the husband and parents are probably more interested in "winning" than anything else. It's all sickening.

and also because without their intervention, the law is clear. not only does michael stand to see little benefit from her passing, he has in fact offered to give every penny of what he receives to charity if her parents will back off.

more illuminating and very well-sourced facts here.

Joshua, I see your point, however, as I said, thinking pragmatically about ways to make all of this end...

If:

1) Terry Schiavo left no clear instructions
2) Michael Schiavo as her guardian can make whatever decision he wants, either to keep the tube orlet er die
3) she is not suffering (this I am open to persuasion on, but if she has no higher brain function...)
4) the parents are willing to assume all responsibility for her care

Then:
What does Michael Schiavo get from this fight besides "winning" over the parents? A new life? He's got one. Closure? Maybe. Fulfilling his (ex)wife's wishes? Possible.

Of course, it's probably far too late for this sort of intra-family conclusion. Perhaps in the beginning, early after the bulimia induced heart attack, but who knows given the level of enmity between Michael Schiavo and Terry's parents. This is the "family" drama that is really sick and sad, however, unfortunately, probably not all that unusual.

And of course, there are always things we can't know, such as whether or not the sainted parents were despised by their child who didn't want to be returned to their care. And of course, it's also entirely possible (probable?) that Terry told her husband at some point "I don't want to live like a vegetable." Who knows.

I guess what this should make all of us think, no matter how young and healthy (and not bulimic) is: "Fuck, I'd better get that living will biullshit straightened out NOW!"

a couple of responses to your what if . . .

first of all, the law is pretty clear that this sort of decisionmaking, all things being equal, belongs first to the patient (via advanced directive) and second to the spouse (absent demonstration of ulterior motive). parents run a distant third.

why should whether or not terri is presently suffering affect her right to self-determination. the factual conclusion florida courts have made and upheld, and which federal courts have declined to reconsider, is that this is what terri wanted. whether she's suffering or not, her wishes about her own willingness to be invasively treated to maintain her in a PVS fo decades should be, and are, what matters.

courts have found that she didn't want this. matters of suffering and what her parents and michael want or stand to gain . . . these all fade away. and traditionally, appellate courts don't disturb lower courts factual findings absent evidence of a plain error or an abuse of discretion. no one has demonstrated that either of these things occurred in this case when the trial court found that she wouldn't want life support under these circumstances.

Well, I'm not debating what the courts found. From my understanding (and, as a Floridian this case has been on and off my radar for awhile now) though there was no firm, written directive from her ie a living will or similar document. The courts made their decision on what other people - primarily her husband - said she wanted. I have no problem with that. To answer your question about suffering, my hypothetical "what if" was in regard to the scenario that she had not really left a firm desire (as opposed ot making her husband swear to never let her go on in a PVS). In that case, it would be the husband's choice whether she lived or died, not knowing what she wanted. In that case, as long as she was not suffering, whether she lived or died would not really matter as long as if she lived she was cared for, and her parents were willing to do that. But my point was that given the level of acrimony between the parents and the husband, my sense is that even if the "what if" scenario I described had been true, that it would not have come to pass, given the nastiness between the inlaws.

On an additional note, have you noticed the team surrounding the parents on this? I listed to Hannity today on talk radio and their main spokesman seemed to be Randall Terry. They also had Newt and Santorum on. I'm sure you'll find it hard to believe, but they managed to turn the conversation into an condemnation of liberal, activist judges.

Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, a leading antiabortion group that has been helping Ms. Schiavo's parents, was also outside the hospice. He left no doubt that many conservatives saw Ms. Schiavo's case as a test for how well conservative lawmakers would hew to their conservative bases.

"This is the biggest test for DeLay and Hastert," he said, referring to the House majority leader and to J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker. "We will hold the House leadership accountable if this thing fails."

"The conservative right of this country has lobbied frantically for two decades to finally get control of both houses," he continued. "We didn't get here so they could pour this down the drain."

"They owe us a political debt of honor," he said. "We are about to find out what the United States House of Representatives if made of."

Oh, and apparently the Lord still works in mysterious ways ....